On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) {
> > >
> > > You should add a function in tick-sched.c to get the next tick. This
> > > is supposed to be a private field.
> >
> > Just to make it clear. Neither the above nor a similar check in
> > tick-sched.c is going to happen.
> >
> > This busy waiting is just horrible. Get your act together and solve
> > the problems at the root and do not inflict your quick and dirty
> > 'solutions' on us.
>
> That's why I proposed a wait-wake scheme instead with the tick stop
> code. What's your opinion about such direction?
Definitely more sensible than mindlessly busy looping.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
